Overtaking and traffic islands

nich

Say you have something like this (there's lots in London!):

,

If the traffic is built up on the left, can you overtake going around the island (if there's no oncoming traffic!)

Cheers

el_presidente

VERBOTEN

prawny

I generally don't but I have once or twice, doesn't look too good on me if I do.

That said cars regularly tear through them on the oppsite side to overtake me :?

I hate them, they're dangerous to cyclists I might write to my new MP.

asprilla

I do it on Fulham Road. There is one junction where it's two lanes one side and one lane plus bus lane on the other which causes the traffic to back up. It's a yellow hatching junction and the traffic generally respects this, so I generally go up the right, round the traffic island and then from right to left into the bus lane as I cross the junction.

Everyone else is stationary and I don't horse it, so I see it as a safe manouver.

lost_in_thought

It's definitely very naughty, and I think almost certainly illegal, but I do do it, although only when there's not really another option. I wonder whether it's actually safer to go round an island than to squeeze through really narrow gaps.....

I guess the thing is that if you somehow came a cropper on the wrong side of a traffic island you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and it probably reinforces negative cyclist stereotypes, even though I regularly see motorbikes doing it too.

Extreme caution required...

tgotb

It is illegal; I asked a policewoman on a bicycle about this once, and she said that they do take a very dim view of vehicles doing this. Reason given is that a pedestrian crossing the road will not expect a vehicle to be coming the 'wrong' way. Same policewoman told me that riding down the 'wrong' side of the road to overtake stationary traffic is fine otherwise (as I'd always assumed) and that it's fine to use any 'lane' when filtering through traffic; you don't have to use a cycle lane on the left if you don't want to. In fact, she advised against using a cycle lane in those circumstances (and most other circumstances too!) for all the safety reasons you'd expect.

wgwarburton

TGOTB wrote:

It is illegal; I asked a policewoman on a bicycle about this once, and she said that they do take a very dim view of vehicles doing this. Reason given is that a pedestrian crossing the road will not expect a vehicle to be coming the 'wrong' way. Same policewoman told me that riding down the 'wrong' side of the road to overtake stationary traffic is fine otherwise (as I'd always assumed) and that it's fine to use any 'lane' when filtering through traffic; you don't have to use a cycle lane on the left if you don't want to. In fact, she advised against using a cycle lane in those circumstances (and most other circumstances too!) for all the safety reasons you'd expect.

Sounds like you got a usefully switched-on Policewoman, there!

I'm a little confused by the example refuge- Firstly, the sign looks wrong and secondly so does the orientation. Is that an example from the US or something?

In the UK I'd expect there to be a "Keep Left" sign (Blue, Circular with an arrow pointing diagonally down and left). I think(!) that's a mandatory sign and is what tells you that going right is illegal, as opposed to just inadvised.
In the absence of a circular "sign giving order", going right may be legal... though I don't know that I'd want to chance it!!!

Cheers,
W.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WGWarburton wrote:

I'm a little confused by the example refuge- Firstly, the sign looks wrong and secondly so does the orientation. Is that an example from the US or something?

I assumed it was European - look at the cycles painted in the cycle lanes. Over here, islands often (?usually ?sometimes) have bollards with the blue arrow pointing bottom left. AFAIK,. those arrows are mandatory.

It knobs me off no end when to$$ers on mopeds ride the wrong way round islands, principally for the reasons give by the WPC mentioned above.

Headhuunter

I got lectured by an aggressive policeman for doing this. The island had an arrow pointing left on it which I suppose made things worse. He was in a convoy of police on motorbikes and shouted "Oi, cyclist... Come 'ere...". Pleasant. It was completely pointless. My way ahead on the left was blocked with traffic (including police convoy) and there was absolutely nothing whatsoever on the other side of the road and it was completely and utterly clear....

litwardle

We gave loads around here too. I always take a strong position and always get some kind of response from the driver behind. Hate them. If there was a simple no overtaking sign on them that would help. (obviously replace the black car with a bike)

They all have arrows pointing to tge left here so passing on the right would be illegal.

Lee

nich

I'll admit I've done it a few times but only when there's no oncoming traffic.

To me it seems far safer as there's often not room on the inside when cars are at a standstill.

I often see cyclists get very close to vehicle -as they squeeze through a gap. You only need to clip the pedals or bars and your'll be orrf.

Having said that, if it's illegal as you're all saying, I guess it's best to be patient 'n wait

Agent57

lost_in_thought wrote:

I do do it, although only when there's not really another option.

What, like waiting?

litwardle

I think it's pretty important that were seen to follow the rules. If cyclists cant be patient and follow the rules it's pretty hard to preach at drivers for impatient overtakes/not giving space. Really annoys me when cyclists RLJ etc.

Lee

Headhuunter

The thing is that they're designed for motor traffic as just about all road design is. Is it really going to lead to the collapse of civilisation if a few cyclists go round a couple of islands when there's absolutely zero traffic coming the other way? AFAIC they're usually pretty pointless as far as cyclists are concerned.

Agent57

Headhuunter wrote:

Is it really going to lead to the collapse of civilisation if a few cyclists go round a couple of islands when there's absolutely zero traffic coming the other way?

I doubt it would lead to the collapse of civilisation if a few cars went round on the wrong side "when there's absolutely zero traffic coming the other way". But that's not really the point, is it?

Headhuunter

Agent57 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Is it really going to lead to the collapse of civilisation if a few cyclists go round a couple of islands when there's absolutely zero traffic coming the other way?

I doubt it would lead to the collapse of civilisation if a few cars went round on the wrong side "when there's absolutely zero traffic coming the other way". But that's not really the point, is it?

I suppose not, however a big old car or van moving to the other side of the road and back again takes a lot more manoeuvring and space, with much more potential for damage, than a cyclist simply skipping round a small island and back in again quick as a flash. In any case, if there's a queue of traffic blocking the way ahead for a car, why would it need to go round the island in the 1st place? If the traffic's nose to tail it can't pull back in and go anywhere anyway. A cyclist on the other hand skips round the island (carefully), moves back in and continues filtering.... Job done. I suppose this harks back to whether you view bikes as "traffic" or something else. I view bikes as glorified pedestrians on wheels rather than cars without motors...

Agent57

I regard bikes as traffic; I think it's quite central to asserting our right to be on the carriageway in the first place. Viewing cyclists as glorified pedestrians would rather more support the idea that we should be on the footway, I reckon.

Headhuunter

Agent57 wrote:

I regard bikes as traffic; I think it's quite central to asserting our right to be on the carriageway in the first place. Viewing cyclists as glorified pedestrians would rather more support the idea that we should be on the footway, I reckon.

Well glorified pedestrians not actual pedestrians, so on the road rather than the pavement definitely. All I'm saying is that the majority of road markings and furniture is designed with much larger, motor powered traffic in mind.

wgwarburton

Headhuunter wrote:

.... I suppose this harks back to whether you view bikes as "traffic" or something else. I view bikes as glorified pedestrians on wheels ...

No! Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! That way doth madness lie!

The roads (think "highways") are for people to use.. whether walking, cycling, riding, driving a cart or even a car.

To drive (think "operate a motor vehicle") you need:

1) To be an adult
2) To pass a test
3) To carry insurance
4) To pay a tax
5) To ensure your car is roadworthy (tested or new)
6) To adhere to specific legislation (eg speed limits)

...and that's just cars, not HGVs, PSVs etc.

Driving is a privilige that can be revoked.

People have a right to use the highway, but not to drive a car, and bikes are traffic.

Reinforce this position. Cycle responsibly on (and off) the road, and don't barrel down shared-use-paths at 20mph....!

Cheers,
W.

Agent57

Headhuunter wrote:

All I'm saying is that the majority of road markings and furniture is designed with much larger, motor powered traffic in mind.

I agree. But as things stand, we are subject to the same rules and regulations as other traffic, so I think we should ride by them. That's why I don't bump up on pavements or run red lights etc. There's already a general perception amongst some people that "cyclists" as a tribe don't obey the rules of the road, and I don't want to reinforce that image. In terms of the attitudes of car drivers, I think it'd do more harm than good.

It's a choice for the individual though, and I accept that overall no great harm is done to anyone if you choose to nip the wrong way round a traffic island.

Headhuunter

WGWarburton wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

.... I suppose this harks back to whether you view bikes as "traffic" or something else. I view bikes as glorified pedestrians on wheels ...

No! Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! That way doth madness lie!

The roads (think "highways") are for people to use.. whether walking, cycling, riding, driving a cart or even a car.

To drive (think "operate a motor vehicle") you need:

1) To be an adult
2) To pass a test
3) To carry insurance
4) To pay a tax
5) To ensure your car is roadworthy (tested or new)
6) To adhere to specific legislation (eg speed limits)

...and that's just cars, not HGVs, PSVs etc.

Driving is a privilige that can be revoked.

People have a right to use the highway, but not to drive a car, and bikes are traffic.

Reinforce this position. Cycle responsibly on (and off) the road, and don't barrel down shared-use-paths at 20mph....!

Cheers,
W.

Who said anything about barrelling down shared paths at 20mph?! I'm just saying that roads are designed with motor vehicles in mind - 100%. What use do bikes have for motorways? Flyovers? Speed limits? etc etc

litwardle

If a car did that there would be hell pay.

wgwarburton

Headhuunter wrote:

Who said anything about barrelling down shared paths at 20mph?! ...

I did! Pedestrians don't travel at 20mph+, so it's inappropriate to share a path with them if you want to ride at a sensible pace.
Hence, by my limited and dubious logic, we arn't pedestrians, glorified or otherwise.

I see it as part of the bikes-are-traffic argument. There's a govt recommendation that if you want to ride faster than 30Km/h you should be on the road: hence Traffic.

Cheers,
W.

Headhuunter

WGWarburton wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Who said anything about barrelling down shared paths at 20mph?! ...

I did! Pedestrians don't travel at 20mph+, so it's inappropriate to share a path with them if you want to ride at a sensible pace.
Hence, by my limited and dubious logic, we arn't pedestrians, glorified or otherwise.

I see it as part of the bikes-are-traffic argument. There's a govt recommendation that if you want to ride faster than 30Km/h you should be on the road: hence Traffic.

Cheers,
W.

OK we're traffic, but we're not traffic in the same way as motor propelled traffic is and the road system is entirely designed for motor traffic. This includes traffic islands. If there were no motor vehicles, there would be no need for traffic islands.

tgotb

Headhuunter wrote:

OK we're traffic, but we're not traffic in the same way as motor propelled traffic is and the road system is entirely designed for motor traffic. This includes traffic islands. If there were no motor vehicles, there would be no need for traffic islands.

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

bails87

TGOTB wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OK we're traffic, but we're not traffic in the same way as motor propelled traffic is and the road system is entirely designed for motor traffic. This includes traffic islands. If there were no motor vehicles, there would be no need for traffic islands.

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

Headhuunter

TGOTB wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OK we're traffic, but we're not traffic in the same way as motor propelled traffic is and the road system is entirely designed for motor traffic. This includes traffic islands. If there were no motor vehicles, there would be no need for traffic islands.

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

Why not? Tarmac was invented and used before the internal combustion engine was! If there were no cars we'd probably have tarmacked roads for horse drawn transport.

spen666

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?


I'm not sure it is illegal per se.

In certain circumstances, it could be careless or inconsiderate driving/ cycling or even dangerous. However, this would depend on circumstances.

I do not advocate doing it, but am not certain it is illegal per se

Agent57

TGOTB wrote:

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

Why not? The CTC were campaigning for better roads back in the nineteenth century. Indeed, I recall reading that the CTC were instrumental early on in getting some roads covered in tarmac or asphalt (although I can't find the reference now).

tgotb

Agent57 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

If there were no motor vehicles, there would also be no nice smooth (hopefully) tarmac.

Why not?

OK, I stand corrected :-)

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

For all those who say it is illegal, what is the offence you think is committed?

No idea on chapter & verse, but isn't it an offence (under something - helpful, eh?) to fail to abide by a mandatory road sign or marking (eg an arrow directing flow on a one way street, or a white arrow painted on the road at a junction/set of lights)?